Thepuppyturtle doesn't seem to know the topic of the debate. The topic is that creationism is accurate according to genesis literalyl however instead we have a broad (and poor) argumentation which doesn't touch on genesis once.
Each of the arguments are spectacularly bad.
1. Evolutionary theory explains altruism and empathy more than sufficiently. Meanwhile, the only explanation that creationism offers is that "God just did it that way". TPT even mentions himself that those who don't recognise the value of life are locked up. There obviously isn't a selective advantage to being a sociopath.
2. You would sooner burn a machine than a treasured pet however you would sooner crush an ant than burn the same Xbox, the ant is clearly a living thing yet the rule breaks down then.
3. This is not evidence for an Intelligent Designer, let alone biblical creationism. Even if evolution didn't explain it it would still be compatable with evolution and even if evolution were incompatable wth it, or indeed totally disproved by it, creationism would not suddenly become better at explaining it.
1. The eye contains many vestiges of the gradual process of its historical development but that isn't the point. Only evolution can explain the many bizarre features of the eyes we would expect of it if it evolved (or at least was designed without intelligent foresight).
2. Not even Michael Behe supports the notion of irreducible complexity of the eye (at least consistently), he claims that IC only applies to molecular level biology (where it also fails).
3. Light sensitive patches ancestral to the eye do not require "visual processing" merely light sensitivity.
4. There is nothing to suggest that mutations can not be immediately helpful or even preserved until helpful.
5. Irreducible complexity is not only compatable with evolution, evolution even demands these systems with inevitable occur (H.J. Muller predicted such systems would be found to evolve back in 1918!)
6. There is no justification offered as to why an Intelligent Designer, let alone a biblical creator explains irreducibly complex systems
1. DNA is NOT information the same way that text is. I leave this unjustified purposefully as to deny this statement of mine one would need to finally define what information is in this context. Something creationists won't and presumably can't do.
2. Information both can evolve and has been comprehensivally documented to evolve.
3. There is no justification for why an intelligent designer, let alone the biblical creator can explain this information let alone any indication this candidates exist to make this process possible. We however know that evolution works and exists which makes it the superior explanation even by default!
Not only can (and does) evolution explain these two facts (the second is too ambiguous to be considered a fact) but nowhere is any of this explained in Genesis (the topic of the debate) nor is there any justification as of yet to attribute any of this to any other cause let alone a specific one.
Each of the arguments are spectacularly bad.
Thepuppyturtle said:
1. Evolutionary theory explains altruism and empathy more than sufficiently. Meanwhile, the only explanation that creationism offers is that "God just did it that way". TPT even mentions himself that those who don't recognise the value of life are locked up. There obviously isn't a selective advantage to being a sociopath.
2. You would sooner burn a machine than a treasured pet however you would sooner crush an ant than burn the same Xbox, the ant is clearly a living thing yet the rule breaks down then.
3. This is not evidence for an Intelligent Designer, let alone biblical creationism. Even if evolution didn't explain it it would still be compatable with evolution and even if evolution were incompatable wth it, or indeed totally disproved by it, creationism would not suddenly become better at explaining it.
1. The eye contains many vestiges of the gradual process of its historical development but that isn't the point. Only evolution can explain the many bizarre features of the eyes we would expect of it if it evolved (or at least was designed without intelligent foresight).
2. Not even Michael Behe supports the notion of irreducible complexity of the eye (at least consistently), he claims that IC only applies to molecular level biology (where it also fails).
3. Light sensitive patches ancestral to the eye do not require "visual processing" merely light sensitivity.
4. There is nothing to suggest that mutations can not be immediately helpful or even preserved until helpful.
5. Irreducible complexity is not only compatable with evolution, evolution even demands these systems with inevitable occur (H.J. Muller predicted such systems would be found to evolve back in 1918!)
6. There is no justification offered as to why an Intelligent Designer, let alone a biblical creator explains irreducibly complex systems
Thepuppyturtle said:
1. DNA is NOT information the same way that text is. I leave this unjustified purposefully as to deny this statement of mine one would need to finally define what information is in this context. Something creationists won't and presumably can't do.
2. Information both can evolve and has been comprehensivally documented to evolve.
3. There is no justification for why an intelligent designer, let alone the biblical creator can explain this information let alone any indication this candidates exist to make this process possible. We however know that evolution works and exists which makes it the superior explanation even by default!
Not only can (and does) evolution explain these two facts (the second is too ambiguous to be considered a fact) but nowhere is any of this explained in Genesis (the topic of the debate) nor is there any justification as of yet to attribute any of this to any other cause let alone a specific one.
